Suppose for a moment that the Big XII ignores factors like football pedigree, attendance and distance from the footprint in their expansion plan. For 11 & 12 they choose their perceived "best markets" and choose Temple (#4 DMA) and UConn (#30 DMA plus whatever they can clam of the NYC market). They tell Houston that they would have been chosen if there weren't already so many Texas schools in the conference.

What happens next? Does Houston then begin to market itself to other conferences or hold out for the eventual departure of Texas schools from the Big XII? Do Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas accelerate their efforts to find an alternative to the Big XII? With the AAC down to ten teams and Cincinnati and Navy being its northernmost schools, does the conference stand at 10, expand north or west or consolidate within its new footprint? Does a meeting occur at a western airport to discuss the formation of a new conference among those who consider themselves to be better than the remnants of the AAC and MW? Will Arkansas Tech apply for Big 10 membership?

Houston is already marketing themselves to anyone that will listen, and some that aren't listening. If they are not they deserve their fate.

Yes, if 8 of the B12 schools ignore UT/OU and add schools those two don't want, UT/OU and probably Kansas will be out the door. The question is, is a Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas-less B12 stronger than the AAC?

Houston not getting into the Big 12 wouldn't be the end of the world. They are positioned well to make a case for a spot in the PAC-12 or ACC down the road.

Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas most likely hold the course until it is an absolute certainty that the Big 12 can no longer compete with the ACC, PAC-12, B1G and SEC, and are forced to make a move elsewhere. The AAC could stand pat at 10 members, but they'd most likely lose their CCG until deregulation passes. If that's the case, the conference could look at Colorado State, Air Force, Boise State and San Diego State again, but the money probably wouldn't be any higher than the MWC. Then they would need to look at Southern Miss, UAB, and some of the other C-USA schools (maybe even NIU or some MAC schools).

Arkansas Tech applies to the NFL to be in the AFC South with Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Tennessee and Houston. They don't fit institutionally with Carolina, New Orleans, Atlanta and Tampa Bay.

(02-28-2016 09:56 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Suppose for a moment that the Big XII ignores factors like football pedigree, attendance and distance from the footprint in their expansion plan. For 11 & 12 they choose their perceived "best markets" and choose Temple (#4 DMA) and UConn (#30 DMA plus whatever they can clam of the NYC market). They tell Houston that they would have been chosen if there weren't already so many Texas schools in the conference.

What happens next? Does Houston then begin to market itself to other conferences or hold out for the eventual departure of Texas schools from the Big XII? Do Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas accelerate their efforts to find an alternative to the Big XII? With the AAC down to ten teams and Cincinnati and Navy being its northernmost schools, does the conference stand at 10, expand north or west or consolidate within its new footprint? Does a meeting occur at a western airport to discuss the formation of a new conference among those who consider themselves to be better than the remnants of the AAC and MW? Will Arkansas Tech apply for Big 10 membership?

Assuming they expand with the teams you mentioned in the first paragraph, the next part is getting the network to keep Oklahoma and Kansas in the Big 12 (assuming no changes anywhere else). If no network, they will leave.

A pure TV market grab would be interesting. Temple over Cincy would be a shock.

Navy, ECU, Cincy, USF, UCF
Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis

That western group has it pretty good geographically. The east is a weird mix. Navy MIGHT reevaluate at that point. Cincy would need grief counseling.

Marshall and Southern Miss look like no-brainer additions. Biased and apathetic mind you.

1) UConn & Temple is the B12's eastern pivot. The P5 added 5 teams in the east last go around (WVU, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, Pitt) so not surprised its viewed as valuable.

2) Houston should be thinking about becoming part of a package deal with Texas. Colorado and Utah do not want to get stuck in a division without California schools but going to 14 with Utah moving over to the division with Stanford and Cal could work. Houston's main competition for a PAC spot is Texas Tech and the fans at both schools are known to go at it on the boards.

3) Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas I think would be happy with an eastern pivot. They want to be thought of as a national conference as much as possible. Its questionable the votes exist in the PAC or B1G for expansion since the schools that got want to retain their turf in their new conference.

4) If the AAC were to lose UConn and Temple that may be the end of their TV contract. At a minimum it will be the end of any thought of upgrading their TV contract. Would Navy still be interested in membership? It sounds like the default plan is to add USM and/or WKU to shore up their western flank rather than stay strong in the East. I'd think they'd be better off trying to go with UAB and ODU to stay strong in basketball.

5) I don't see a new best of the rest conference formation between the MWC and AAC post UConn and Temple departing. MWC teams have determined that what they have already is at least as good as what joining the AAC has to offer. Remember that before the MWC was the clear 7th best conference behind the Big East in football and now its either 6th or 7th best conference with the AAC. In football, conference rank matters as historically their have been more than 5 power conferences.

6) Arkansas Tech needs to get into the Southland before any FBS conference is going to give it the time of day. Texas State made the move from the Southland to the WAC a pretty big move but it can be done.

(02-28-2016 10:06 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Yes, if 8 of the B12 schools ignore UT/OU and add schools those two don't want, UT/OU and probably Kansas will be out the door. The question is, is a Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas-less B12 stronger than the AAC?

Absolutely a B12 without Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas is stronger than the AAC.

They would have Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma State and Kansas State. Track records in football that would be beyond with WVU, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and if WVU, Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville were enough to anchor a BCS conference its already a level up from what the AAC is currently.

Plus the B12 is a P5 conference. Legally within the NCAA structure they have greater voting rights than the AAC. Do you think that with a couple of defections like Oklahoma and Texas from the B12 there would be a push by the P4 to remove them from the club? I hardly think they would.

Again as I've said before the B12 is at the moment the Ottoman Empire of the P5 but they are still a major power. I doubt they would even take a per school pay cut if Oklahoma and Texas were to go and they make 20 times what the AAC makes. The AAC cannot compete with that.

(02-28-2016 09:56 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Suppose for a moment that the Big XII ignores factors like football pedigree, attendance and distance from the footprint in their expansion plan. For 11 & 12 they choose their perceived "best markets" and choose Temple (#4 DMA) and UConn (#30 DMA plus whatever they can clam of the NYC market). They tell Houston that they would have been chosen if there weren't already so many Texas schools in the conference.

What happens next? Does Houston then begin to market itself to other conferences or hold out for the eventual departure of Texas schools from the Big XII? Do Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas accelerate their efforts to find an alternative to the Big XII? With the AAC down to ten teams and Cincinnati and Navy being its northernmost schools, does the conference stand at 10, expand north or west or consolidate within its new footprint? Does a meeting occur at a western airport to discuss the formation of a new conference among those who consider themselves to be better than the remnants of the AAC and MW? Will Arkansas Tech apply for Big 10 membership?

This scenario has already happened. Its called the AAC and it didn't exactly work.

threads like these read like people are not even paying attention to what is going on they are just making David State threads with zero reasoning behind them

1. Texas is not currently looking to leave the Big 12 and they have made ZERO indication they are

2. there is not a chance in hell that OU will be able to leave the Big 12 before the GOR ends if the Big 12 expands AT THE BEHEST OF THE IDIOT RUNNING OU.....OU would be sued into the poor house by the remaining members of the Big 12 and probably even more so by the teams added to the Big 12 that came to the Big 12 at the behest of the idiot running OU only to watch OU try and leave

there is not a chance that OU would not get destroyed in court for trying that

3. UH can shop themselves to anyone they wish, but there is ZERO indication that the ACC or PAC 12 is looking to expand and there is not even any reason to even speculate they are.....there is not a chance in hell that UH is the reason the PAC 12n would suddenly become a financial success or that the PAC 12n would get "in market" rates in Texas for adding UH and there is not a chance in hell that UH helps the ACC get a conference network so adding UH is just another mouth to feed with the same overall money and that is not happening

UH is not going to the SEC or the Big 10 they are not even in consideration

4. the Big 12 makes a great deal more money that the ACC and they are ahead of the PAC 12 as well and as cable subscribers decline that should continue so there is no issue of "being competitive with the PAC 12 or ACC" for the Big 12

5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

(02-28-2016 02:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

5) AAC TV contract probably requires 12 members so them going back to 12 is expected especially when going to 12 can shore up on some weaknesses. Don't expect any western member to consider it though.

6) I don't think Texas is going anywhere. All I am saying is that Houston should be testing the waters with the PAC to see if there is interest on their side. Located directly in the media market of the biggest media market in Texas helps.

(02-28-2016 02:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 02:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

5) AAC TV contract probably requires 12 members so them going back to 12 is expected especially when going to 12 can shore up on some weaknesses. Don't expect any western member to consider it though.

6) I don't think Texas is going anywhere. All I am saying is that Houston should be testing the waters with the PAC to see if there is interest on their side. Located directly in the media market of the biggest media market in Texas helps.

there is not a chance in hell that ESPN will try and mess with the AAC TV contract if the Big 12 takes two schools from the AAC

ESPN paying additional money to the Big 12 (about half the cost of adding any two teams) is pretty much a text book court case of tampering and enticement and the $3.6 million per year that ESPN would save is probably less than the court cost would be if (and it is a BIG IF) ESPN managed to got get sued into the next century by the AAC

this is part of the reason that adding two teams to the Big 12 is all the worse of a proposition for ESPN

the Big 12 TV contract scales and in the 2017-18 year is when the middle of the contract will take place and that is when the Big 12 would be earning the contract average of $20 million per year per team and after that it goes up by about a million a year per team to the end of the contract

that means that over the remaining years of the TV deal it will take an average of $23.5 million per year per team to add teams to the Big 12

ESPN and Fox basically split the cost of the Big 12 media contract and so they would be on the hook for about $23.5 million per year on average EACH to add two teams to the Big 12 for the 2017 season and for ESPN if you add in the $3.6 million per year they WILL CONTINUE to pay the AAC for the teams that have left the cost just get worse and worse for ESPN in particular and that does not include the $25 to $30 million a year for a CCG (and whoever bids on that)

so ESPN would be looking at an average cost of $27.1 million per year to add a team to the Big 12

and that is for a team that ESPN currently values at $1.8 million per year

then there is the fact that ESPN sub licenses games to CBS from that AAC contract and if ESPN helps the two "most valuable" teams in the AAC leave to go to the Big 12 you can pretty much count on CBS asking for a refund or a reduction on the value of that licensing agreement if they do not just attempt to outright break it.....and then the cost to ESPN for luring teams from the AAC to the Big 12 gets even worse

(02-28-2016 02:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  threads like these read like people are not even paying attention to what is going on they are just making David State threads with zero reasoning behind them

1. Texas is not currently looking to leave the Big 12 and they have made ZERO indication they are

2. there is not a chance in hell that OU will be able to leave the Big 12 before the GOR ends if the Big 12 expands AT THE BEHEST OF THE IDIOT RUNNING OU.....OU would be sued into the poor house by the remaining members of the Big 12 and probably even more so by the teams added to the Big 12 that came to the Big 12 at the behest of the idiot running OU only to watch OU try and leave

there is not a chance that OU would not get destroyed in court for trying that

3. UH can shop themselves to anyone they wish, but there is ZERO indication that the ACC or PAC 12 is looking to expand and there is not even any reason to even speculate they are.....there is not a chance in hell that UH is the reason the PAC 12n would suddenly become a financial success or that the PAC 12n would get "in market" rates in Texas for adding UH and there is not a chance in hell that UH helps the ACC get a conference network so adding UH is just another mouth to feed with the same overall money and that is not happening

UH is not going to the SEC or the Big 10 they are not even in consideration

4. the Big 12 makes a great deal more money that the ACC and they are ahead of the PAC 12 as well and as cable subscribers decline that should continue so there is no issue of "being competitive with the PAC 12 or ACC" for the Big 12

5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

I actually agree with some of your points, but as usual,, your irrational hate for Houston causes you to veer off into completely crazy lines of thought.

The addition of Houston would obviously by definition trigger "in state" rates for the Pac12 Network in Texas. Would that be enough for the Pac-12 to break even or even profit from the addition of Houston--maybe--maybe not. Doesn't really matter though, because who else could they pair Houston with at this point who wouldn't decrease value? No other state offers 26 million people like Texas. The only one I can think of could be BYU--but they are non-starter as a religious institution. So for now--I just don't see a path out of the AAC for Houston. Unfortunately, the way things are developing, we are going to be trapped in the AAC for a long long time.

(02-28-2016 03:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 02:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  threads like these read like people are not even paying attention to what is going on they are just making David State threads with zero reasoning behind them

1. Texas is not currently looking to leave the Big 12 and they have made ZERO indication they are

2. there is not a chance in hell that OU will be able to leave the Big 12 before the GOR ends if the Big 12 expands AT THE BEHEST OF THE IDIOT RUNNING OU.....OU would be sued into the poor house by the remaining members of the Big 12 and probably even more so by the teams added to the Big 12 that came to the Big 12 at the behest of the idiot running OU only to watch OU try and leave

there is not a chance that OU would not get destroyed in court for trying that

3. UH can shop themselves to anyone they wish, but there is ZERO indication that the ACC or PAC 12 is looking to expand and there is not even any reason to even speculate they are.....there is not a chance in hell that UH is the reason the PAC 12n would suddenly become a financial success or that the PAC 12n would get "in market" rates in Texas for adding UH and there is not a chance in hell that UH helps the ACC get a conference network so adding UH is just another mouth to feed with the same overall money and that is not happening

UH is not going to the SEC or the Big 10 they are not even in consideration

4. the Big 12 makes a great deal more money that the ACC and they are ahead of the PAC 12 as well and as cable subscribers decline that should continue so there is no issue of "being competitive with the PAC 12 or ACC" for the Big 12

5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

I actually agree with some of your points, but as usual,, your irrational hate for Houston causes you to veer off into completely idiotic lines of thought. Its ok. You cant help it.

The addition of Houston would obviously by definition trigger "in state" rates for the Pac12 Network in Texas. Would that be enough for the Pac-12 to break even or even profit from the addition of Houston--maybe--maybe not. Doesn't really matter though, because who else could they pair Houston with at this point who wouldn't decrease value? No other state offers 26 million people like Texas. The only one I can think of could be BYU--but they are non-starter as a religious institution. So for now--I just don't see a path out of the AAC for Houston. Unfortunately, the way things are developing, we are going to be trapped in the AAC for a long long time.

you are under the false impression that there is some type of rule, law or edict from God that cable companies are required or forced to pay "in state rates" simply because a conference has a team in that state

this is of course not remotely true and in the case of the PAC12n some cable MSOs and Direct TV have chose to not even carry the network even with teams in the state in the conference (they only have 11 million subscribers and there are a great deal more cable subscribers than 11 million in the PAC 12 footprint alone)

so your premise that having UH in the PAC 12 would trigger in market rates is not valid or supported by fact

cable MSOs even stated that A&M was not going to be a trigger for in market rates in all of Texas so there is no chance that UH would do so for the PAC12n

(02-28-2016 03:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 02:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 02:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

5) AAC TV contract probably requires 12 members so them going back to 12 is expected especially when going to 12 can shore up on some weaknesses. Don't expect any western member to consider it though.

6) I don't think Texas is going anywhere. All I am saying is that Houston should be testing the waters with the PAC to see if there is interest on their side. Located directly in the media market of the biggest media market in Texas helps.

there is not a chance in hell that ESPN will try and mess with the AAC TV contract if the Big 12 takes two schools from the AAC

ESPN paying additional money to the Big 12 (about half the cost of adding any two teams) is pretty much a text book court case of tampering and enticement and the $3.6 million per year that ESPN would save is probably less than the court cost would be if (and it is a BIG IF) ESPN managed to got get sued into the next century by the AAC

this is part of the reason that adding two teams to the Big 12 is all the worse of a proposition for ESPN

the Big 12 TV contract scales and in the 2017-18 year is when the middle of the contract will take place and that is when the Big 12 would be earning the contract average of $20 million per year per team and after that it goes up by about a million a year per team to the end of the contract

that means that over the remaining years of the TV deal it will take an average of $23.5 million per year per team to add teams to the Big 12

ESPN and Fox basically split the cost of the Big 12 media contract and so they would be on the hook for about $23.5 million per year on average EACH to add two teams to the Big 12 for the 2017 season and for ESPN if you add in the $3.6 million per year they WILL CONTINUE to pay the AAC for the teams that have left the cost just get worse and worse for ESPN in particular and that does not include the $25 to $30 million a year for a CCG (and whoever bids on that)

so ESPN would be looking at an average cost of $27.1 million per year to add a team to the Big 12

and that is for a team that ESPN currently values at $1.8 million per year

then there is the fact that ESPN sub licenses games to CBS from that AAC contract and if ESPN helps the two "most valuable" teams in the AAC leave to go to the Big 12 you can pretty much count on CBS asking for a refund or a reduction on the value of that licensing agreement if they do not just attempt to outright break it.....and then the cost to ESPN for luring teams from the AAC to the Big 12 gets even worse

I actually agree with most of this. You lay out some good reasons why ESPN will not lower or cancel the AAC contract. However, I think there is a much more basic reason ESPN wont mess with the AAC contract---its an underpriced asset for them. They got the league for a song and its outperformed all their expectations on the field and in the ratings. If they get rid of it, there would be line of networks ready to snap it up, probably willing to pay more than ESPN pays now. There is no real economic reason for ESPN to dump it.

ESPN may suggest two additions, but they will say nothing if the AAC just stands pat at 10.

As for the costs involved in adding teams to the Big-12---its irrelevant from the stand point of ESPN or Fox. The language guaranteeing per team share to remain unchanged with the addition of teams #11 and #12 is already in the contract (per Boren). That provision was already agreed to and the contract including it signed back in 2012. That horse is already out of the barn for ESPN and Fox. Im sure they get to provide input--but if the Big12 wants to add 2, then Fox/ESPN is stuck paying for it. You don't get to rewrite old contracts just because you aren't as flush as you used to be.

(02-28-2016 03:32 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 03:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 02:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  threads like these read like people are not even paying attention to what is going on they are just making David State threads with zero reasoning behind them

1. Texas is not currently looking to leave the Big 12 and they have made ZERO indication they are

2. there is not a chance in hell that OU will be able to leave the Big 12 before the GOR ends if the Big 12 expands AT THE BEHEST OF THE IDIOT RUNNING OU.....OU would be sued into the poor house by the remaining members of the Big 12 and probably even more so by the teams added to the Big 12 that came to the Big 12 at the behest of the idiot running OU only to watch OU try and leave

there is not a chance that OU would not get destroyed in court for trying that

3. UH can shop themselves to anyone they wish, but there is ZERO indication that the ACC or PAC 12 is looking to expand and there is not even any reason to even speculate they are.....there is not a chance in hell that UH is the reason the PAC 12n would suddenly become a financial success or that the PAC 12n would get "in market" rates in Texas for adding UH and there is not a chance in hell that UH helps the ACC get a conference network so adding UH is just another mouth to feed with the same overall money and that is not happening

UH is not going to the SEC or the Big 10 they are not even in consideration

4. the Big 12 makes a great deal more money that the ACC and they are ahead of the PAC 12 as well and as cable subscribers decline that should continue so there is no issue of "being competitive with the PAC 12 or ACC" for the Big 12

5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

I actually agree with some of your points, but as usual,, your irrational hate for Houston causes you to veer off into completely idiotic lines of thought. Its ok. You cant help it.

The addition of Houston would obviously by definition trigger "in state" rates for the Pac12 Network in Texas. Would that be enough for the Pac-12 to break even or even profit from the addition of Houston--maybe--maybe not. Doesn't really matter though, because who else could they pair Houston with at this point who wouldn't decrease value? No other state offers 26 million people like Texas. The only one I can think of could be BYU--but they are non-starter as a religious institution. So for now--I just don't see a path out of the AAC for Houston. Unfortunately, the way things are developing, we are going to be trapped in the AAC for a long long time.

you are under the false impression that there is some type of rule, law or edict from God that cable companies are required or forced to pay "in state rates" simply because a conference has a team in that state

this is of course not remotely true and in the case of the PAC12n some cable MSOs and Direct TV have chose to not even carry the network even with teams in the state in the conference (they only have 11 million subscribers and there are a great deal more cable subscribers than 11 million in the PAC 12 footprint alone)

so your premise that having UH in the PAC 12 would trigger in market rates is not valid or supported by fact

cable MSOs even stated that A&M was not going to be a trigger for in market rates in all of Texas so there is no chance that UH would do so for the PAC12n

Well, I do know the only way to get "in state" rate is to have a team "in state". Also, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Pac12 Network doesn't even have an "in state" rate. It has one rate--.80 cents---everywhere. Which is dumb, and is likely why they have such bad carriage. Their network gets extremely light limited carriage in Texas, mostly only on special "sports tiers". A recent survey found that Houston was the 3rd most popular team in Texas. There is little doubt that the inclusion of Houston would increase the Pac-12 Networks carriage in Texas. Right now, there is little reason for Texas systems to carry the network.

(02-28-2016 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 03:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 02:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 02:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  5. CCG deregulation has already PASSED.......are people that comment on this in a coma?......so there is not a issue of the AAC losing their CCG with 10 teams

6. there is not a chance in hell that Texas would partner with UH to go to the PAC 12.....ESPECIALLY JUST UH....that would be the dumbest move in the history of evAR both financially and from a fan or recruiting standpoint and from the standpoint of teams Texas remotely cares about playing year in and year out

5) AAC TV contract probably requires 12 members so them going back to 12 is expected especially when going to 12 can shore up on some weaknesses. Don't expect any western member to consider it though.

6) I don't think Texas is going anywhere. All I am saying is that Houston should be testing the waters with the PAC to see if there is interest on their side. Located directly in the media market of the biggest media market in Texas helps.

there is not a chance in hell that ESPN will try and mess with the AAC TV contract if the Big 12 takes two schools from the AAC

ESPN paying additional money to the Big 12 (about half the cost of adding any two teams) is pretty much a text book court case of tampering and enticement and the $3.6 million per year that ESPN would save is probably less than the court cost would be if (and it is a BIG IF) ESPN managed to got get sued into the next century by the AAC

this is part of the reason that adding two teams to the Big 12 is all the worse of a proposition for ESPN

the Big 12 TV contract scales and in the 2017-18 year is when the middle of the contract will take place and that is when the Big 12 would be earning the contract average of $20 million per year per team and after that it goes up by about a million a year per team to the end of the contract

that means that over the remaining years of the TV deal it will take an average of $23.5 million per year per team to add teams to the Big 12

ESPN and Fox basically split the cost of the Big 12 media contract and so they would be on the hook for about $23.5 million per year on average EACH to add two teams to the Big 12 for the 2017 season and for ESPN if you add in the $3.6 million per year they WILL CONTINUE to pay the AAC for the teams that have left the cost just get worse and worse for ESPN in particular and that does not include the $25 to $30 million a year for a CCG (and whoever bids on that)

so ESPN would be looking at an average cost of $27.1 million per year to add a team to the Big 12

and that is for a team that ESPN currently values at $1.8 million per year

then there is the fact that ESPN sub licenses games to CBS from that AAC contract and if ESPN helps the two "most valuable" teams in the AAC leave to go to the Big 12 you can pretty much count on CBS asking for a refund or a reduction on the value of that licensing agreement if they do not just attempt to outright break it.....and then the cost to ESPN for luring teams from the AAC to the Big 12 gets even worse

I actually agree with most of this. You lay out some good reasons why ESPN will not lower or cancel the AAC contract. However, I think there is a much more basic reason ESPN wont mess with the AAC contract---its an underpriced asset for them. They got the league for a song and its outperformed all their expectations on the field and in the ratings. If they get rid of it, there would be line of networks ready to snap it up, probably willing to pay more than ESPN pays now. There is no real economic reason for ESPN to dump it.

ESPN may suggest two additions, but they will say nothing if the AAC just stands pat at 10.

As for the costs involved in adding teams to the Big-12---its irrelevant from the stand point of ESPN or Fox. The language guaranteeing per team share to remain unchanged with the addition of teams #11 and #12 is already in the contract (per Boren). That provision was already agreed to and the contract including it signed back in 2012. That horse is already out of the barn for ESPN and Fox. Im sure they get to provide input--but if the Big12 wants to add 2, then Fox/ESPN is stuck paying for it. You don't get to rewrite old contracts just because you aren't as flush as you used to be.

Assuming the bolded quote to be true, why doesn't the Big 12 invite Army and Navy to be football only members? Pay them a flat $10 million each. With the conference getting $40 million from ESPN, and adding the payout for a CCG, the existing 10 members would get a windfall of $4 million a year each - more than they would get if they added a network.

They would also get to reduce the number of conference games from 9 to 8, helping them all boost their Tier 3 rights values. And Oklahoma and Texas get another OOC game against a national brand if they want (I'm looking at you, ND).

just because the language is in the agreement that does not mean ESPN paying $27.1 million a year and Fox paying about $23.5 per year is a good value in addition to any reduced revenues from CBS for ESPN in relation to AAC licensing

ESPN is getting away with paying about $3.6 million per year (less whatever they get from CBS) for that content why would want to pay $20 million more for it

those teams are not any more valuable because they are suddenly in the Big 12

I don't have a problem with the B12, but the ACC has always been our goal.

Crazy Big XII Scenario:
* the SEC and B1G agree to bump their memberships to 16
* the PAC12 begrudgingly agrees to 4 more in order to keep up
* the ACC stands at the ready to head off the Big XII from assuming the #4 spot in the pecking order
* after hours of negotiations B1G takes Kansas from Big XII and Missouri from SEC; solidifying mid western & northern states the B1G is done.
* SEC, with 3 spots, goes after Oklahoma, Texas, NC. All 3 feel in-state pressure to bring along sister institutions.
* PAC12 makes a power play and offers TX, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, and Oklahoma. 3/4 accept, except for Oklahoma.
* Oklahoma is first to make a formal commitment to the SEC.
* In a surprising move, the PAC12 offers its last spot to New Mexico who accepts. The PAC16 is done.
* With Oklahoma on board and the SEC West secured at 8, the SEC targets UNC and UVA. Both accept and the SEC is done.
* The ACC has 4 spots to fill with relatively little damage to it's market coverage. Offers go out to West Virginia, Cincinnati, Baylor, full membership to Notre Dame. All accept and the ACC is done.

B1G
West - MO, KS, NE, IA, MN, WI, IL, NW
East - Purd., IN, MI, MSU, OSU, PSU, Rut., MD

PAC16
North - WA, WA St, OR, OR St, Cal, Stan., UT, CO
South - USC, UCLA, AZ, AZ St, NM, TT, TX, Ok St

SEC
West - OK, aTm, AR, LSU, MS, MS St, AL, Aub.
East - FL, GA, Vandy, TN, KY, SC, NC, VA

ACC
North - ND, L'ville, Cincy, WV, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Miami
South - VT, WF, Duke, NC St, Clem, GT, FSU, Baylor

* Big XII, left with IA St, KS St, TCU, absorbs most of the AAC and expands to 18.

Big American Conference (XII)
West - Houston, Kansas St, Iowa St, Memphis, SMU, Southern Miss, TCU, Tulane, Tulsa
East - UMass, UConn, Temple, Marshall, ODU, ECU, Georgia St, UCF, USF

And that's my crazy scenario.

Your AAC is crazy!! However: if you flip-flop TT and Oklahoma, those sound pretty good.